Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Greening academia: Developing sustainable waste management at Higher


Education Institutions
N. Zhang a, I.D. Williams a,, S. Kemp a, N.F. Smith b
a
b

School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, University Rd., Higheld, Southampton, Hampshire SO17 1BJ, UK
Estates and Facilities Management, University of Southampton, University Rd., Higheld, Southampton, Hampshire SO17 1BJ, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 March 2010
Accepted 8 March 2011
Available online 29 March 2011

a b s t r a c t
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are often the size of small municipalities. Worldwide, the higher
education (HE) sector has expanded phenomenally; for example, since the 1960s, the United Kingdom
(UK) HE system has expanded sixfold to >2.4 million students. As a consequence, the overall production
of waste at HEIs throughout the world is very large and presents signicant challenges as the associated
legislative, economic and environmental pressures can be difcult to control and manage. This paper critically reviews why sustainable waste management has become a key issue for the worldwide HE sector to
address and describes some of the benets, barriers, practical and logistical problems. As a practical illustration of some of the issues and problems, the four-phase waste management strategy developed over
15 years by one of the largest universities in Southern England the University of Southampton (UoS) is
outlined as a case study. The UoS is committed to protecting the environment by developing practices
that are safe, sustainable and environmentally friendly and has developed a practical, staged approach
to manage waste in an increasingly sustainable fashion. At each stage, the approach taken to the development of infrastructure (I), service provision (S) and behavior change (B) is explained, taking into
account the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental (PESTLE) factors. Signposts to lessons learned, good practice and useful resources that other institutions both nationally
and internationally can access are provided. As a result of the strategy developed at the UoS, from
2004 to 2008 waste costs fell by around 125k and a recycling rate of 72% was achieved. The holistic
approach taken recognizing the PESTLE factors and the importance of a concerted ISB approach provides a realistic, successful and practical example for other institutions wishing to effectively and sustainably manage their waste.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In 2008/2009, England generated 27.3 Mt of municipal solid
waste (MSW), a reduction of 4.1% over the preceding year (DEFRA,
2009). Household waste represented 24.3 Mt (89%) of MSW, or
403 kg of household waste per person, of which 9.1 Mt (37.6%)
had some sort of value (recycling, composting, energy from waste
and fuel manufacture (DEFRA, 2009)). Although there remain considerable regional variations, the proportion of MSW being recycled or composted stood at 36.9% in 2008/2009, which at the
time, represented Englands best ever waste management performance (DEFRA, 2009). The value is still relatively low in comparison with many other European Union (EU) countries. It is
difcult to compare recycling rates between countries as different
measurements are used. Nevertheless, other EU countries such as
the Netherlands, Austria, and Belgium appear to achieve much
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 2380 598755; fax: +44 (0) 2380 678606.
E-mail address: idw@soton.ac.uk (I.D. Williams).
0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.006

higher levels of recycling: more than 50% in some cases (Eurostat,


2009). Englands local authorities must continue to develop appropriate waste management strategies if they are to reach their statutory targets and match the performance of other EU countries.
Universities are considered to be similar to small towns because
of their large size, population, and the various complex activities
taking place on campuses (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008). As
such, they not only need to maintain an appropriate physical infrastructure, they require similar services to small towns, including
accommodation, transport, retail, leisure and, of course, waste
management. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are key sites
of tertiary learning and research, major employers, economic actors and providers of cultural, recreational and infrastructure resources (Lambert, 2003) and they have substantial potential to
catalyse and accelerate societal transitions towards sustainability
(Stephens et al., 2008). Integrated waste management systems in
particular, are one of the greatest challenges for HEIs sustainable
development (Armijo de Vega et al., 2008). HEIs generate
thousands of tonnes of waste and waste generated from HEIs is

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

classied as household waste in the United Kingdom (UK),


although in many cases, it is collected by private contractors (DEFRA, 2007). Nevertheless, the dramatic expansion of UK higher
education (HE) sector in scale and scope has put even bigger pressure to formally integrate sustainable development into policy and
practice.
This research focus on sustainability issues, combined with a
desire to control the escalating costs and environmental impacts
of procurement and waste management, prompted the University
of Southampton (UoS) to put its own house in order for commercial and external image purposes, as well as providing real-life
exemplars of the outputs of its own research activities. This paper
critically reviews why sustainable waste management has become
a key issue for the HE sector to address and describes some of the
benets, barriers, practical and logistical problems. As a practical
illustration of some of the issues and problems, the four-phase
waste management strategy developed over 15 years at the UoS
is discussed as a case study.
2. Context
2.1. The UK HE sector
The expansion of the HE sector across the world has been phenomenal since the 1960s (Schofer and Meyer, 2005); there currently at least 37 million HE students in Europe and the United
States of America combined. The UK HE sector has expanded from
just 400,000 students in the 1960s to over 2400,000 in 2007/2008
(Greenaway and Haynes, 2003; HESA, 2009a,b) and more than
370,000 academic and non-academic staff are now directly employed by UK universities (Greenaway and Haynes, 2003; HESA,
2009a). There are currently 166 HEIs and more than a third of a
million students graduate from UK universities every year (HESA,
2008, 2009c). Universities play a multi-faceted role within local
and regional economies and are of key importance in the creation
and transfer of knowledge internationally through teaching, research and other activities (Wells et al., 2009). One of the consequences of this expansion has been a corresponding growth of
physical infrastructure and services on campuses and at student
halls of residence (HoR), which has led to a parallel impact on
the natural environment. For example, since 1990, the total carbon
emissions from the HE sector have risen an estimated 34% (HEFCE,
2009).
The HE sector has signicant purchasing power. Universities UK
(2006) estimated that HEIs spent approximately 16.6 billion in
2003/2004, of which 14.3 billion was estimated to have been expended on UK goods and services. This expenditure generated
25.6 billion of output in other UK industries, with personal offcampus expenditure of students amounting to 1.5 billion annually. The HE sector provides >1.2% of full time equivalent employment in the UK and owns 25 million m2 of gross space; this
represents an estimated 20% of the whole UK ofce market, with
annual revenue costs of 1.67 billion, a third of which goes on repair and maintenance (HEFCE, 2007). Ward et al. (2008) found that
in 2006, the reported total energy consumption from all sources in
funded HEIs was equivalent to the consumption of one third of a
million average UK householders or 30% of the householders in
Wales. These gures illustrate the overall importance of the downstream segment of the HE sector.
2.2. Sustainability at HEIs
In line with other sectors, the sustainability of HEIs has become
a concern worldwide for policy makers, and under increasingly intense scrutiny from environmental pressure groups, sustainability

1607

movements, University stakeholders, student activism and NGOs


(Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008). The concept of sustainability
in HE started with the Stockholm Declaration, which was the rst
declaration to recognize the interdependency between humanity
and the environment (United Nations Educational Scientic and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 1972). In recent years, UNESCO
(2005) declared 20052014 as the decade of Education for Sustainable Development, clearly recognizing the urgent need to integrate
sustainable development issues and principles into education and
learning.
Velazquez et al. (2006, p. 812) denes a sustainable University
as: a whole or as a part, that addresses, involves and promotes,
on a regional or a global level, the minimization of negative environmental, economic, societal, and health effects generated in the
use of their resources in order to full its functions of teaching, research, outreach and partnership, and stewardship in ways to help
society make the transition to sustainable lifestyles. In 2008, the
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) published
a strategic review of sustainable development in the HE sector in
England, which stated that:
Within the next 10 years, the higher education sector in this
country will be recognized as a major contributor to societys
efforts to achieve sustainability through the skills and knowledge that its graduates learn and put into practice, its research
and exchange of knowledge through business, community and
public policy engagement, and through its own strategies and
operations.
Sustainability implies that the critical activities of HEIs are ecologically sound, socially and economically viable, and that they will
continue to be so for future generations. Universities have a moral
and ethical obligation to act responsibly for the environment
(Armijo de Vega et al., 2008) and its inhabitants (Armijo de Vega
et al., 2003). Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) claim that HEIs
should not only educate, but also demonstrate environmental principles and stewardship by taking action to understand and reduce
impacts that result from their activities. Their role in promoting
sustainability can be demonstrated in several aspects. Firstly, unlike many other large institutions, HEIs often have extensive inhouse expertise on the wide range of topics that are needed for
their sustainable development and are able to combine local and
global knowledge to create synergies with the potential of developing new solutions (Forrant and Pyle, 2002). Secondly, the HE sector is a vital incubator for future leaders as well as for research,
innovation and demonstrating a variety of model practices. It plays
a key role in instilling and spreading the value and practices of sustainability as it is training future generations who will need to
envision, endorse and implement sustainable development
(Thompson and Green, 2005). Thirdly, HEIs can potentially inuence the rest of society by enhancing outreach, engagement and
collaboration (Stephens et al., 2008). However, the barriers to sustainable development in HE are similar to those in other sectors of
society, including a lack of sufcient money for projects, time and
commitment (Evangelinos et al., 2009; Pittman, 2004; Velazquez
et al., 2005).
Outreach to a Universitys surrounding communities is also vitally important in the pursuit of sustainability. The UoS is continually working to extend its partnerships and share learning and
practice in sustainability with the local community. As an example,
it aims to promoting sustainability in the local community by
encouraging students in private accommodation to manage their
waste responsibly, thereby avoiding nuisance and pollution from
waste. It also collaborates with local charities to enable them to
gain donations and monetary value from the reuse and recycling
of materials from the University.

1608

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

2.3. Waste management at HEIs


Historically, most UK HEIs simply hired a contractor to deal
with its waste arisings. However, the commercial drivers for
change have become signicant as the cost of waste collection
and disposal in the UK has increased sharply due to the introduction of and subsequent increases in landll tax, which was introduced in the UK in 1996. Since 1999, landll costs have risen via
the UK landll tax escalator an incremental increase in tax per
tonne on an annual basis which has increased the cost of using
landll for waste disposal. From 1999 to 2004, the escalator was
1 per tonne; it increased to 3 per tonne between 2005 and
2008. With effect from 1 April 2008, the escalator is now 8 per
tonne and by 2014/2015, landll tax will become 80 per tonne.
Landll tax and the escalator are seen as a key driver in enabling
the UK to meet its targets as set out in the Landll Directive. Relevant legislative drivers are shown in Table 2.
Many HEIs use waste management activities, especially recycling, as a starting point for sustainability initiatives (Mason
et al., 2003; Pike et al., 2003). They can potentially save money
for HEIs and are often highly visible and generally non-controversial (Barlett and Chase, 2004). Table 1 summarizes ongoing campus
recycling activities/programmes in the HE sector across the UK and
elsewhere. However, setting up environmental initiatives such as
recycling programmes is no easy task. It is widely recognized that
the following ingredients are key to successful environmental projects at HEIs (Creighton, 1998; Evangelinos et al., 2009; Kaplowitz
et al., 2009; Richardson, 2007):
 Understanding how HEIs work, especially how internal decisions are made.
 Commitment and demonstrated support for environmental
actions.
 Sufcient funding.






A University-wide co-ordination.
Adequate communication and knowledge.
Well planned infrastructure; and
Reliable contractors.

HEIs are often characterized by extensive bureaucracy, lack of


integration due to decentralised management, high stafng levels
with unclear chain of responsibilities and high turnover of staff
and students (Velazquez et al., 2005). Previous studies suggest that
strong leadership, the support of senior administrators and the
adoption of a clear environmental policy are critical components
of successful environmental projects (Richardson, 2007; Velazquez
et al., 2005).
Despite the future or long-term benets, a lack of funding remains a major concern for all involved in sustainability initiatives
(Dahle and Neumayer, 2001; Levy and Dilwali, 2000), and it is often difcult to overcome. It is essential that all stakeholders see
environmental initiatives as effective and making a difference
(Davio, 2001). It is also important that they understand and realize
the negative impacts if the initiatives are not implemented (Carpenter and Meehan, 2002).
Leading and co-ordinating waste management initiatives is difcult in large organizations such as universities which often comprise hundreds of departments and divisions with thousands of
staff and students. One means of ensuring effective implementation is to appoint an individual who is responsible for co-ordinating the environmental management and performance of the
institution. According to a study by People and Planet (2009), 84
out of 126 UK universities have employed at least one full-time
and one part-time staff with a clear stated environmental function
in the University. The level of responsibility and inuence of environmental staff varies from University. General areas for day-today management include coordinating and leading the delivery
of a Universitys waste management strategy; monitoring and

Table 1
Campus recycling activities/programmes across the HE sector.
Resource

Description

Source

Resource type

Waste aware
campus (UK)

This programme aims to help staff and students at Scotlands colleges


and universities introduce and promote effective waste prevention and
recycling services. Information provided includes: case studies, a
campus recycling directory and how to guides
EcoCampus is an Environmental Management System (EMS) and award
scheme for the higher education sector that encourages and enables
universities to take up a structured management system
This programme provides an on-line Waste Management Guide that
provides information, new case studies, links to other sources of
information and guidance
An annual award that recognizes exceptional initiatives taken by
universities and colleges across the UK to become more sustainable. The
Awards have a variety of categories that universities and colleges can
illustrate their achievements in both academic and estates management
The Green League ranks UK universities using key environmental
indicators, including waste management, water consumption, carbon
emissions
A network of campus-based recycling professionals who face similar
challenges and opportunities in managing college and University
programs. It aims to organize and support environmental program
leaders at HEIs in managing resources, recycling, and waste issues
A program that encourages graduates to donate their used furniture,
electric appliances and books to be reused by new students. It started in
1999 and has become a national programme across Japanese
universities
HEFCE funded this project within its Leadership, Governance and
Management Fund. The aim of the project was to work with HEIs in
different English regions to implement, improve and extend reuse
schemes in student halls of residence and on campus
The study considers the use of paper by academics and student
computer laboratories at Rhodes University as a basis for identifying
areas to reduce the amounts used and increase rates of recycling

www.wasteawarecampus.org.uk/about.asp
(accessed 18.08.09)

Toolkit

www.ecocampus.co.uk (accessed 18.08.09)

Environmental
management
system
Guide

EcoCampus (UK)

EAUC (UK)

Green Gown Award


(UK)

People and Planet


Green League
(UK)
College and
University
Recycling
Council (USA)
Recycling market
(Japan)

Moving Towards
Zero Waste (UK)

Rhodes University
(South Africa)

www.eaucwasteguide.org.uk (accessed 18.08.09)

www.eauc.org.uk/green_gown_awards (accessed
18.08.09)

Award

www.peopleandplanet.org/greenleague (accessed
18.08.09)

League

www.nrc-recycle.org/curcmission.aspx (accessed
18.08.09)

Organization

www.greenaction.org/features/index.shtml
(accessed 18.08.09)

Programme

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/environment/
OurInitiatives/WasteAndResources/
ZeroWasteHefce.htm (accessed 02.11.09)

Programme

Amutenya et al. (2009)

Research

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

ensuring legal compliance; developing and implementing sustainable procurement policies; writing environmental reports; and
liaising with staff, students, other universities, local authorities,
contractors and regulators.
Regular, effective, targeted and sufcient communication is another important component for successful waste management at
HEIs. The implementation of recycling schemes must be accompanied by suitable publicity and promotion. Previous research shows
that there is a recycling knowledge gap among the segments of the
University community on what to recycle, where to recycle and
how to recycle (Kaplowitz et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2006; McDonald
and Oates, 2003). Due to the set-up and the number of people involved in a HEI, key information is often unavailable or dispersed
in several departments. To address this, Thompson and Green
(2005) suggested using a small and stable group of people in each
department who are committed to the initiatives is effective in
communication.
Growing and sustaining the participation of a whole University
community is central to the success of any campus-recycling program (Kaplowitz et al., 2009). It is thus essential to design and
implement strategies that will minimize barriers to recycling and
previous studies have suggested that a convenient infrastructure
also plays a vital role (Kelly et al., 2006; Ludwig et al., 1998;
McCarty and Shrum, 1994). However, most studies have tended
to focus on recycling behavior (e.g. Amutenya et al. (2009) and
Gunton and Williams (2007)), but development of parallel infrastructure and service provision at HEIs has not been afforded the
same priority.
Although this may seem obvious, anecdotal evidence available
to the authors emphasises the (disproportionate) importance of hiring a reliable and trustworthy waste management contractor;
numerous recycling schemes have failed when contractors decided,
often with no warning, to stop or change collections, procedures
and charges. A contractors suitability should be thoroughly assessed based on objective, evidence-based criteria such as: reliability; technical expertise; experience and track record; equipment
and facilities owned by the contractor; operational strategies and
practices; public health and environmental protection practices.

1609

to some extent its Procurement Strategy, are based on the principles that underpin the waste hierarchy. Timlett and Williamss ISB
model clusters the various motivators and barriers to waste management into situational (external) and psychological (internal)
factors and recognizes that they should not be considered in isolation but are interconnected.
Qualitative methods were used to evaluate the development of
waste management practice at the UoS in this study. The researchers conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with staff from the
Estates and Facilities Management department, halls of residence
managers, the Universitys Environment Manager, the Students
Union and the waste contractor. The goal of the interviews was
to obtain in-depth information about how waste was/is managed
at the UoS and how practices have evolved over time. The approach
used can be described as follows:
 Detailed notes were taken during most of the interviews; some
interviews were recorded and notes were recorded afterwards
from a review of audio.
 Ideas, categories or themes that helped to answer predetermined research questions were subsequently highlighted.
 These data were then compiled and arranged in themes. The
themes showed how a four-phase waste management framework emerged at the UoS, shown in Table 3.
The main objectives of the study were to:
 Develop a phased and practical sustainable waste management
strategy for a HEI, based upon a PESTLE analysis, Timlett and
Williamss (in press) ISB model and the waste hierarchy, focusing on increasing waste reduction, re-use, recycling and composting and using quantitative targets for each phase.
 Enable the collection of accurate and reliable data using a PayBy-Weight system with information on tonnage, numbers of
bins per building, size of bins, number of collections; and
 Reduce the cost of waste disposal and the amount of waste
being disposed of to landll.
3.1. Phase One

3. Case study waste management at the University of


Southampton
The UoS has the highest number of staff and PhD students engaged in sustainable development research in England (HEFCE,
2008). It is one of the regions largest employers with over 5000
staff and an annual turnover of >370 million. With a student community of >23,000, including >2000 international students from
over 100 different countries, the University has a global network
of 160,000 alumni spanning 147 countries (University of Southampton, 2009a,b). It produces large volumes of waste from its residences, catering areas, laboratories, workshops and grounds and
typically spends >500,000 per year on waste disposal.
Over the last decade, the UoS has developed a comprehensive
waste strategy based upon a so-called PESTLE analysis, the waste
hierarchy and Timlett and Williams emerging ISB (infrastructure,
service, behavior) model (Timlett and Williams, in press). A PESTLE analysis is often used as a useful starting point for organizations developing new strategies and policies and stands for the
Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental
context impacting on an organization (e.g. Fahey and Narayanan,
1986; Farnham, 1999). The waste hierarchy is an established factor
in the development of sustainable waste management practices,
setting out the order in which options for waste management
should be considered based on environmental impact (DEFRA,
2002). The UoSs Waste and Resource Management Strategy, and

In the 1990s, there were a number of problems associated with


the way in which waste was being managed at the UoS, which was
probably typical of most UK HEIs at the time. Prior to Phase One,
waste was charged by volume and the University was often unexpectedly charged for extra volume. No quantitative waste management data was collected and the system did not enable the true
cost of waste management to be easily estimated. Consequently,
the University adopted a new Pay-By-Weight waste disposal contract that enabled cost savings through optimisation of collection
patterns and more centralized administration. This was an innovative decision because at this time, little attention had been given to
the establishment of Pay-By-Weight systems in other UK HEIs, in
part because a limited number of contractors provided the service.
In addition, re-use and recycling facilities were provided at the
University on an ad hoc basis. Voluntary paper recycling schemes
operated in a small number of ofces and the bins were emptied
by voluntary ofcers.
In 2002, the UoS joined the Southern Universities Waste Management Consortium (SUWMC), which comprised of seven universities in the south of England. Its primary purposes were to create a
forum to discuss waste-related issues and promote sustainable
waste management by:
 Reducing tendering and contract management costs.
 Negotiating a consortium-based, sustainable, long-term waste
management contract.

1610

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

Table 2
Legislative standards that apply to the UoSs waste management practices.
Legislation

Compliance

Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989

The University has to make sure that its contracts are registered with the Environment Agency and hold a waste
management licence
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 separates waste regulation from operational work in local authorities and
implements more regulations and controls
The University has a Duty of Care to ensure all waste is managed to prevent its escape to the environment. The
University uses licensed waste contractors to dispose of the different waste streams. Each movement of waste
requires a waste transfer note (unless the contractor is exempt, such as a charity), which must be kept for at least
2 years
Oils (above 250 l) stored outside buildings must be in bunded areas or tanks providing 110% of the volume stored
The aim of the Directive is to increase the recovery and recycling of old cars by setting laws demanding the use of
Authorized Treatment Facilities (ATFs) for their breakdown and reprocessing. Materials affected include metals, oils,
batteries, tyres, plastics and WEEE waste
The WEEE regulations seek to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of
electrical and electronic equipment. The Universitys responsibilities are to ensure that all WEEE is collected for
treatment or recycling, and that the WEEE is delivered into the correct logistical chain to ensure it recycled or
disposed of appropriately
Places controls on the storage, transport, treatment, and disposal of animal by-product food and research waste
produced by the University
The regulations apply to the University regarding the permitting or exemption for storage of waste at University
premises
The regulations cover the management of harmful wastes and require registration of University premises where
more than 500 kg is produced. Each movement of hazardous waste requires a consignment note, which must be
kept for at least 3 years
The regulations place requirements on the University for the collection, treatment and recycling of waste batteries
and accumulators
Regulations brought into force for England new rules (the Environmental Liability Directive) to force polluters to
prevent and repair environmental damage that they have caused the polluter pays principle

Environmental Protection Act 1990


Duty of Care Regulations 1991

Oil Storage Regulations 2001


End-of-life vehicles (ELVs) Directive 2003

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment


Regulations (WEEE) 2005

Animal by Products Regulations 2005


Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007
Hazardous Waste (Amendment) Regulations
2009
Batteries Directive 2009
Environmental Damage (Prevention and
Remediation) Regulations 2009

Table 3
Staged approach to the development of sustainable waste management at the UoS.

Phase 1

Year

Action

Drivers

Late 1990s
2003

Voluntary paper recycling schemes on campus


Start of Pay-By-Weight contract
Source-segregated pilot scheme on campus
Environmental Rock
Southern Universities Waste Management Consortium
Corporate Strategy
Setting up a waste management team

Active individuals
PESTLE analysis
Waste hierarchy
Students Union
Reduced costs and increased value for money
Duty of Care 1991

Recruitment of the environment manager


Start of the Sustainable Procurement Project
Sustainable Purchasing Policy
Environment and Sustainability Policy
Roll-out recycling scheme on campus
Bin and uplift audit
First Environmental Awareness Week
Sustainable Purchasing Policy
Furniture reuse scheme
Re-use and recycling project at the halls of residence
First annual waste audit event

Increase of Landll Tax


Estate and Facilities

Environment Manager Southern Universities Waste Management Consortium

2010

Environmental Champions
Re-tendered for the Pay-By-Weight contract
Co-mingled recycling scheme on campus
Co-mingled recycling scheme at halls of residence
Pilot mobile phone take-back service

2012 (Provisional)

Separate food waste collection

Landll Directive 1999

2003
2004
Phase 2

2005

2006

2007
Phase 3

2008
2009

Phase 4

 Conducting Duty of Care audits.


 Identifying waste minimization opportunities, and
 Sharing information with other members.
Knowing that managing waste effectively required accurate
quantitative and qualitative information, in 2003, the SUWMC
introduced the Pay-By-Weight system across its members to their
general waste collection systems. The bins used were microchipped and automatically logged details such as: time/date of collection; location of bin and bin weight using a specially equipped
vehicle. A standard lift price was agreed to empty the bins, but beyond this all billing was done on a per tonne rate. Prior to 2003,

Increase of Landll Tax


Students Union
Estate and Facilities
Estate and Facilities
School of Civil Engineering and the Environment
Students Union

Increases in Landll Tax


See Ongondo and Williams (in press)

waste management costs were charged as part of a space charging


system, but this system did not plainly show the rapid rise in waste
management costs or how wasteful a particular department was.
The new scheme was considered to be transparent, allowed operators to match collections with demand and improved the efciency
of the waste collection system. Crucially, it allowed the UoS to accurately identify and monitor the sources of waste on campus to avoid
unnecessary costs in the second phase of its strategy. In addition,
from an operational point of view, the new waste containers were
easy to manage and manoeuvre, their close-tting lids eliminated
smells and spillages and discouraged vermin, and this ensured a
cleaner and more hygienic service. A detailed discussion about the

1611

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

advantages and disadvantages of different waste collection systems


at HEIs can be found in Zhang et al. (2008a).
In order to increase environmental awareness, the UoS held a
music-based event dubbed Environmental Rock in April
2002 to provide a fun event that would attract a wide range of people from the University and the local community and provide
information about the environment. The event was initiated by a
nal year Engineering student inspired by a song reecting
thoughts on the environment. The Young Peoples Trust for the
Environment (YPTE) mentored and funded the rst year event
(Gunton, 2009). Environmental Rock subsequently became an annual event at the University and is usually held during April. The
event is supported by environmentally-conscious organizations
that provide stalls, give away information and samples of green
products, run activities or donate green prizes.
In 2004, the University adopted an Environmental Policy in its
Corporate Strategy. This policy committed the University to reduce
waste and pollution through responsible disposal and reinforced
the need to meet and where possible exceed legislative requirements. To realize the policy statements and cope with the increasing work load, a waste management team of was set up within the
Estate and Facilities management.
3.2. Phase Two
From the start of this phase, source-separated recycling (where
all dry recyclables were sorted by students and placed into different
containers/bags) became an integral part of the waste management
operation. In 2005, a paper and cardboard recycling trial was set up
at the Universitys main administration building. In the same year,
the University joined a three-year Environmental Association for
Universities and Colleges (EAUC)/Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Environmental Action Fund sustainable procurement project, which provided support to universities
and colleges wanting to integrate sustainability into their procurement practices. The project involved 17 universities and colleges
and a sustainable purchasing policy was developed via a PESTLE
and waste hierarchy analysis. The policy sets out a rm commitment to the principles of sustainable procurement through making
purchasing decisions based on a balance between the relevant
PESTLE factors. To be eligible for consideration, suppliers were required to provide information about their environmental performance and develop corresponding assessment criteria, including
whole lifecycle costing. The main theme was to consider the impacts of the product or service on the environment over its entire
lifecycle, from creation to disposal. Priority was given to reducing
waste upstream by choosing products made from recycled materials and/or items that can be remanufactured, recycled or com-

posted. Staff, students and contractors were encouraged to


consider the many aspects of a product, including materials used
in manufacture, methods of production and embedded energy, energy use of the product over its life span, eventual disposal costs
and environmental impacts and potential for re-use or recycling
(NetsRegs, 2009). The University then introduced a new electronic
ordering system to centralize all procurements. The environmental
benets of this exercise were threefold: it dramatically reduced the
amount of resources used by the Universitys operations; the number of suppliers reduced from 30,000 to 7000 based on preferred
supplier agreements, signicantly reducing administrative costs;
substantial cost savings were negotiated through consolidation of
spending power. Furthermore, specic items, such as printing paper
was targeted and policies developed to minimize the amounts
wasted generated and purchase recycled products.
In 2005, the University recruited a full-time environment manager to work with the waste management team; the individual was
responsible for overseeing the environmental performance of the
University, and developed, implemented and monitored environmental strategies, policies and programmes that promoted sustainable development. The structure of the operational team is shown
in Fig. 1. A paper and cardboard recycling scheme was rolled out on
campus during the 2006/2007 academic year. Recycling containers
were provided to each building on campus for recycling paper and
card. They were sited in prominent areas on each oor of buildings,
and emptied weekly by the Universitys recycling team. Waste
skips were replaced with micro-chipped wheeled bins and the
Pay-By-Weight data was used to improve the efciency of the system by e.g. reducing the number of bins. Meanwhile, waste compounds to contain the wheeled bins were built on campus and at
the halls in order to prevent y-tipping and scavenging. The University purchased a cardboard compactor to deal with the large
volume of cardboard from cafeterias and shops on campus and
baled cardboard was taken away by the contractor for recycling
(free of charge).
In March 2006, an audit of existing bins and uplifts was undertaken. Wherever possible, external general waste bins were removed, downsized or shared and uplifts were reduced. The
scheme saved approximately 140k per year and allowed operators to further match collections with demand, which maximized
the efciency of collection journeys and reduced expenditure, local
nuisance from large vehicle noise and vibration, and other associated environmental impacts, such as fuel consumption and emissions to atmosphere.
To echo the Universitys environmental initiatives, the UoS Student Union held their rst annual Environmental Awareness Week
in May 2006. The week-long event featured a different environmental theme each day and was lled with activities and messages

Director of Estate & Facilities

Engineering

Planning &
Systems

Facilities
Management

Environmental Manager

Finance

Programme
Management

Heath & Safety Manager

Campus Service manager

External Services
Manager
Waste & Recycling Team

Domestic Services
Manager
Cleaners

Fig. 1. Organizational structure of the waste management team at the UoS.

1612

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

relating to living and working in a more sustainable way. Activities


in the week included talks by green groups, recycling displays, alternative travel to work days, guided walks, guided cycle rides, etc.
A furniture reuse scheme was introduced at the UoS in 2006 in
an attempt to manage the Universitys assets better. The movement of staff switching ofces, buildings and campuses as a
consequence of management re-organizations generated a lot of
bulky wastes, including furniture. The furniture collected was rst
offered to staff for reuse before being broken down and sent for
recycling. The furniture redistribution tax was the rst attempt
to reclaim the extra money associated with providing a better service for the disposal of a particular waste stream. Money generated
by this scheme was put back into Estate and Facilities waste budget and used to fund the purchase of additional recycling facilities,
such as internal bins. As well as promoting sustainable asset management practices, the scheme has generated considerable cost
savings; the University saved 77,000 in 2009 alone.
In 2007, the source separated recycling scheme was expanded
to include plastic bottles and metal cans. Consequently, by the
end of 2007, the UoS had a comprehensive campus recycling programme that serviced around 400 collection points, while employing six full-time and three part-time staff. Collaboration amongst
different departments was fundamental to the programme. The
Campus Services Manager and the Environment Manager now took
responsibility for working with the campus community to incorporate waste reduction, reuse, recycling and sustainable practices
into all aspects of University business. They also took the lead on
sustainable procurement for all goods and services and trained
staff at all levels in environmental issues and responsibilities. From
August 2007 to July 2008, the UoS spend a total of 376,000 on the
waste contract including 52,000 on landll tax which was made
up of 20,000 from HoR, 32,000 from campuses. From August
2008 to July 2009, the University spent 415,000 including
32,000 on landll. Approximately two thirds of the waste was disposed of at the landll tax rate of 32/ton for and one third was
disposed at the rate of 40/ton.
The rst annual waste audit was organized in 2007. Its purpose
was to monitor the progress of the existing recycling schemes,
identify recycling opportunities or opportunities to strengthen
the current waste and recycling program on campus. The samples
covered all the main sites and activities across the University. The
waste was then sorted into different sub-categories, and data was
recorded accordingly.
Also in 2007, a two-year recycling project at HoR was initiated
that aimed to identify the most user-friendly, pragmatic, costeffective and resource efcient waste management service possible, as recycling in a high density environment is difcult (Timlett
and Williams, 2009; Zhang et al., 2008b). Before September 2007, a
restricted number of paper recycling facilities were available at the
student HoR. The recycling bins were typically situated in car parks
or open areas and were often hidden away and inconveniently located. There was an incoherent communications strategy that led
to low awareness and engagement. All of these factors led to poor
participation in recycling and a poor (estimated) recycling rate
across the HoR.
Three schemes were designed to identify the most effective
infrastructure and service provision during term-time accompanied
by waste audits and a survey of students attitudes and behavior
with respect to waste management. Four student halls (AD) were
selected to test three different schemes and one hall was used as a
control. Students were given a 13-l recycling bin for their bedrooms
at A (referred to as the bedroom bin scheme), whereas students
were provided with a reusable recycling bag for their bedrooms
at B (referred to as the bedroom bag scheme). At both halls, the
students were expected to recycle paper, cardboard, plastic bottles,
metal cans, glass bottles and jars and empty and sort their recycla-

bles at a central external recycling point. A general waste bin was


provided in each communal kitchen and emptied daily by the University cleaning staff. At the third hall a twin-bin system was implemented at C (referred to as the kitchen bin scheme). Two 60-l
color coded bins were supplied to each kitchen to recycle paper,
cardboard, plastic bottles and metal cans and they were situated
next to the existing general waste bins. The University cleaning
staff emptied the general waste bins three times a week (on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays) and recycling bins twice a week
(on Tuesdays and Thursdays) and were responsible for carrying
the recycled materials to a central recycling point for sorting. No
recycling facilities were provided inside the control hall (D). However, a range of re-use/recycling facilities supplied by Southampton
City Council were available locally (within a 1 mile radius), including 17 bottle banks, one textile bank and two recycling centers with
facilities to recycle paper, glass, plastic, cans and textiles.
The selected HoR were all self-catered and provided accommodation for about 750 students, approximately 15% of the students
living in halls. The HoR were shared by 68 students and had communal kitchens and similar oor plans. A succession of workshops
and informal talks were provided to the new students in the rst
week when they moved into the HoR. Information offered during
these workshops and talks included: importance of recycling activities; where and how they can recycle in the halls; where they can
nd more information. Informative posters were provided and
stickers were placed on the lid of each recycling container provided
advice and location-specic guidance. During term-time, the Students Union and resident associations (Junior Common Room
(JCR) and Middle Common Room (MCR)) promoted recycling
schemes on campus and at HoR by advertising the schemes on
their websites and talking to students directly.
The end-of-term is a very busy period for waste management
operations as students leaving University accommodation dispose
of items which are no longer required or cannot be transported or
stored. Therefore, the project included a trial reuse scheme at the
end of each term. In June 2007, the UoS set up an in-house reuse trial
to reduce the amount of waste to be landlled. The following year,
the University collaborated with a local charity to reuse and recycle
any unwanted student clothing, shoes and household textiles.
3.3. Phase Three
Phase Three focused on maximizing recycling via the establishment of a new co-mingled recycling system. Co-mingled recycling
schemes (where all dry recyclables are placed into just one container/bag by students) are considered to be more convenient than
source separated schemes in terms of time and effort students
need to spend on recycling. They are also easier and safer to operate, produce greater recyclables recovery rates, and are as costeffective as alternative methods. By introducing the co-mingled
system, the UoS was able to recycle more material, reduce waste
disposed to landll and hence reduce the number of general waste
bins, and replace them with recycling bins. The University was
subsequently able to save on collection costs and Landll Tax associated with general waste.
In 2008, a network of Environmental Champions was set up to
take forward environmental improvements in schools/departments and to encourage the campus waste recycling schemes.
The Champions were trained jointly by the waste contractor and
the Environment Manager and play an important role in promoting
the Universitys sustainability initiatives. They receive support and
information directly from the Environmental Manager, and the
network is used to raise awareness of the recycling scheme on a
departmental level; provide feedback on improvements that can
be made to facilities and campaigns; and develop targets for individual departments.

1613

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

3.4. Phase Four


Phase Four will continue efforts to improving recycling participation but the focus will switch to promoting food waste recycling
arising from catering areas and the HoR (food waste forms a significant proportion of wastes arising from HoR). Once available
commercially, the UoS is planning to implement food waste composting as the last stage of the waste management strategy beginning in 2010/2011.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Waste production and recycling data
Fig. 2 shows trends in waste and recycling arisings and associated cost since 2004. The gures show a signicant improvement
Incinerated waste

General waste

Cost

0.6

6000

0.5

5000

0.4

4000
0.3
3000
0.2
2000
0.1

1000

Recycling rate

Cost p.a. (millions, 000,000s)

Total waste arisings (tonnes)

Recycled waste

7000

0
2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

in performance; there is a steady reduction in the amount of waste


produced each year from >6000 tonnes in 2004/2005 to <3900 tonnes in 2007/2008, despite the number of staff and students staying
relatively stable. This equates to 72 kg per person per year in 2007/
2008. The total waste reduction can be explained by some initial
problems in collecting performance data. In the rst 2 years, the
system was only able to achieve a two-thirds data capture, despite
the Contractors claims that the weighing systems on all vehicles
were regularly checked and calibrated. Recognizing that the contractor lacked experience of using the system, the UoS worked with
the contractor to monitor and improve their performance. Two
years after the start of the contract, the system stabilized and more
complete datasets became available (Table 4).
Fig. 3 shows that in 2007/2008, the UoS recycled 72% of its general waste, with a 75% reduction of waste going into landll compared to 2004/2005. By increasing the recycling rate and reducing
waste production since 2004, the University has been able to save
40,000 annually and more than 125,000 in total even though the
unit cost of waste treatment has increased over the last 4 years due
to substantial annual increases in the UKs Landll Tax. Note that
the number of students at the UoS during this period has remained
reasonably steady at 2324,000 (HESA, 2010a,b).
Fig. 4 shows that general waste arisings by month for the last
3 years using the Pay-By-Weight system. It reveals that an increase
in waste production levels at the start of new terms when the students return to campus (October, January, March) and an increase
in waste production towards the end of the term (MayJuly). The
total amount of general waste produced has decreased over these
3 years. Fig. 5 shows that monthly cost of waste disposal of including general, hazardous, electrical and electronic waste for the last
3 years.
The results clearly show the positive impact of introducing
appropriate infrastructure, service provision and techniques to
encourage positive behavior change at the UoSs HoR. Providing
recycling bins in each kitchen achieved an average 25% recycling

130

110

75%

90
50%
70
25%

50

0%

30
2004-05

2007-08

Fig. 2. Waste and recycled material arising and cost (20042008) at the UoS.

Cost of waste disposal per tonne municipal waste

100%

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Fig. 3. Annual recycling rate and unit cost per tonne of waste at the UoS.

Table 4
Qualitative targets of each phase of the UoS waste strategy.
Main initiative

Qualitative targets

Phase 1
Phase 2

Introduce Pay-By-Weight system


Set up source segregated recycling scheme

Phase 3

Switch to co-mingled recycling scheme

Phase 4

Reduce carbon emission from biodegradable waste such


as food waste

Establish baseline data by employing the Pay-By-Weight system and improve waste storage
Monitoring waste arising data
Reduce the number of general waste bins and replacing them with recycling bins
Pilot and Roll out source segregated recycling schemes
Maximizing the recycling rate by introducing a more convenient co-mingled recycling scheme
on campus and at HoR and increase environmental awareness amongst staff and
Introducing separate food waste collection and off-site food waste anaerobic digestion

/tonne

In the same year, the SUWMC re-tendered for an improved PayBy-Weight contract. The new contractor provided a Pay-By-Weight
system for general waste and a co-mingled system for dry recyclables. The external contract was designed to provide recycling-led
waste management services that supported the consortiums environmental objectives, reduce the impacts of waste, achieve increased levels of recycling, reduce waste to landll and meet
legislative requirements. The new contract was implemented at
the UoS from January 2009.
In spring 2010, a two-day event for the collection of unused/unwanted mobile phones and related accessories targeting students
was piloted at the UoS. The aim of the trial was to assess the inuence of various factors and incentives on students participation in
prospective University mobile phone take-back services/schemes
(see Ongondo and Williams, in press, for details).

1614

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

and misleading labeling of infrastructure; and poor communication practices. The unreliable and irregular collections had a particularly detrimental inuence on the new scheme, with negative
impacts including: overowing and unsightly recycling bins;
breeding of ies and vermin; operational and logistical difculties
for the halls staff; de-motivation of students and consequent
reductions in participation; and disagreements with the University. The contractor initially denied any poor performance, but
was obliged to agree to signicantly improve performance at a
crisis meeting in which it was confronted with irrefutable (photographic and other) evidence of unacceptable practices.
4.3. Behavior change methods

Fig. 4. Comparison of monthly general waste at the UoS using the Pay-By-Weight
system (20062009).

Fig. 5. Comparison of the monthly cost of general waste at the UoS, including
hazardous and electrical/electronic waste (20062009).

Once a comprehensive recycling infrastructure and a reliable


service provision were in position, different methods of communication that aimed to change students/staff behavior were used.
Resistance to change is a common occurrence in organizations
and has been a major obstacle in many sustainability projects
(Dahle and Neumayer, 2001; Jahiel and Harper, 2004; Velazquez
et al., 2005). Although some previous studies have recognized the
importance of engaging the student group, there is a lack of research on behavior change interventions targeting transient groups
such as University students (Robertson and Walkington, 2009;
Timlett and Williams, 2009; Williams and Gunton, 2007). The approaches in this project were designed to engage the students in
thinking about how and what might increase their awareness
and interest in recycling by using both traditional and creative
methods. The campaign targeted students before they moved into
HoR by e-mailing them with customized information about waste
management in their welcome package from the UoS. It is recognized that managing and taking responsibility for waste recycling
is not top of a students agenda when they rst arrive at University,
so the messages need to be repeated quite frequently. Towards the
end of each academic year, student satisfaction surveys were carried out to provide an opportunity for feedback, including problems/issues and potential future improvements.
5. Conclusions

rate with the lowest contamination level, which supports the theory that successful recycling programmes require a carefully designed, convenient and easy-to-use infrastructure supported by a
regularly applied, tailored communication campaign. Convenience
in this case incorporates two features: the distance to the collection spot where recyclables are carried to and the time spent on
recycling activities. The end-term re-use scheme resulted in collection of 1.85 tonnes of reusable textiles by the end of September
2008.
4.2. Implementation issues of recycling facilities and service provision
There have been several hurdles to overcome during the course
of Phase Three. At the beginning, contamination by non-recyclable
materials was regularly found in recycling bins. Several techniques
were used to reduce contamination, including using larger labels
for internal recycling bins, notifying staff/students of the consequences of contamination and providing clear recycling instructions on the Universitys website.
When source-segregated recycling schemes were introduced to
HoR in September 2007, a number of issues arose, including poor
quality service by the contractor and insufcient support from
the hall managers. The service provided by the contractor suffered
from an array of problems, including: unreliable and irregular collections; movement of the recycling bins without consultation
with the University; late and poor quality data provision; false

This paper has critically reviewed and identied why sustainable waste management has become a key issue for the global
HE sector to address. Over the last two decades in particular, the
UK HE sector has generated increasingly large amounts of waste
as a consequence of fast expansion and hence faced spiraling costs,
accelerated by the annual increase in Landll Tax. The sector has
struggled to deal with these and related environmental issues for
many reasons, including a lack of University-wide coordination,
institutional bureaucracy and lack of planning. The case study outlined in this paper has provided a comprehensive appraisal of some
of the key issues, problems and successes that have arisen during
the four-phase waste management strategy developed over the
last 15 years at the UoS. There is no doubt that the UoS has significantly developed and improved its management/operational practices and facilities for waste management into a more sustainable,
cost-effective and user-focused system. The holistic approach taken recognizing the PESTLE factors and the importance of a concerted ISB approach provides a realistic, successful and practical
example for other institutions wishing to effectively and sustainably manage their waste.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to give a special thanks to Mr. Mike Travers from the UoS for his time, expertise, patience, invaluable and

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

unstinting support. The authors would also like to thank the UoS
HoR managers, the UoS students and Students Union, and Ms. Helena Gunton from Hampshire County Council, for their advice,
encouragement, help and support.
References
Alshuwaikhat, H.M., Abubakar, I., 2008. An integrated approach to achieving
campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental
management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (16), 17771785.
Amutenya, N., Shackleton, C.M., Whittington-Jones, K., 2009. Paper recycling
patterns and potential interventions in the education sector: a case study of
paper streams at Rhodes University, South Africa. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 53 (5), 237242.
Armijo de Vega, C., Ojeda-Benitez, S., Ramirez-Barreto, M.E., 2003. Mexican
educational institutions and waste management programmes: a University
case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 39 (3), 283296.
Armijo de Vega, C., Ojeda Bentez, S., Ramrez Barreto, M.E., 2008. Solid waste
characterization and recycling potential for a university campus. Waste
Management 28 (Suppl. 1), S21S26.
Barlett, P.F., Chase, G.W., 2004. Sustainability on Campus. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Carpenter, D., Meehan, B., 2002. Mainstreaming environmental management: case
studies from Australasian universities. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 3 (1), 1937.
Creighton, S.H., 1998. Greening the ivory tower: improving the environmental track
record of universities, colleges and other institutions. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Dahle, M., Neumayer, E., 2001. Overcoming barriers to campus greening.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 2 (2), 139160.
Davio, R., 2001. Inuences and Motivations on Curbside Recycling Participation in
Austin. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
DEFRA, 2002. Waste Not, Want Not. Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs, London.
DEFRA, 2007. Classication and Reporting of Waste. Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs. <http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/
localauth/documents/letter-la-cwr.pdf> (accessed 10.11.09).
DEFRA, 2009. Municipal Waste Management Statistics for England 2008/09.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. <http://www.defra.gov.
uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/archive/mwb200809_statsrelease.
pdf> (accessed 10.12.09).
Eurostat, 2009. Half a Ton of Municipal Waste Generated Per Person in the EU27 in
2007.
Eurostat
Press
Ofce.
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/
ITY_PUBLIC/8-09032009-BP/EN/8-09032009-BP-EN.PDF> (accessed 09.05.09).
Evangelinos, K.I., Jones, N., Panoriou, E.M., 2009. Challenges and opportunities for
sustainability in regional universities: a case study in Mytilene, Greece. Journal
of Cleaner Production 17 (12), 11541161.
Fahey, L., Narayanan, V.K., 1986. Macroenvironmental Analysis for Strategic
Management. West Publishing Company, Minnesota.
Farnham, D., 1999. Managing in a Strategic Business Context. Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development, London.
Forrant, R., Pyle, J.L., 2002. Globalization, universities and sustainable human
development. Development 45, 102106.
Greenaway, D., Haynes, M., 2003. Funding higher education in the UK: the role of
fees and loans. Economic Journal 113 (485), F150F166.
Gunton, H., 2009. Discussion on the Environmental Rock. [E-mail] (Personal
Communication November 10 2009).
Gunton, H., Williams, I.D., 2007. Waste minimisation using behaviour change
techniques: a case study for students. In: Lechner, P. (Ed.), Waste Matters:
Integrating Views. Proceedings of the Second BOKU Waste Conference, April
1619. BOKU-University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna,
ISBN 978-3-7089-0060-5, pp. 303314.
HEFCE, 2007. Performance in Higher Education Estates EMS Annual Report 2006.
Higher Education Funding Council for England, London.
HEFCE, 2008. Strategic Review of Sustainable Development in Higher Education in
England. Higher Education Funding Council for England, London.
HEFCE, 2009. Consultation on a Carbon Reduction Target and Strategy for Higher
Education in England. Higher Education Funding Council for England, London.
HESA, 2008. Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education in the United Kingdom
for the Academic Year 2007/08. Higher Education Statistics Agency. <http://
www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1479/161/> (accessed 17.06.09).
HESA, 2009a. Students and Qualiers Data Tables. Higher Education Statistics
Agency.
<http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/studentsAndQualiers/
download/institution0708.xls?v=1.0> (accessed 10.08.09).
HESA, 2009b. Some Headline Statistics. Higher Education Statistics Agency. <http://
www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/category/1/1/161/> (accessed 15.08.09).
HESA, 2009c. All Students by Institution, Mode of Study, Level of Study and
Domicile. Higher Education Statistics Agency. <http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/
dataTables/studentsAndQualiers/download/institution0708.xls?v=1.0>
(accessed 10.10.09).
HESA, 2010a. All Students by Institution 2004/05. Higher Education Statistics
Agency.
<http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/studentsAndQualiers/
download/institution0405.xls?v=1.0> (accessed 10.11.10).
HESA, 2010b. All Students by Institution 2008/09. Higher Education Statistics
Agency.
<http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/studentsAndQualiers/
download/institution0809.xls?v=1.0> (accessed 10.11.10).

1615

Jahiel, A.R., Harper, R.G., 2004. The green task force: facing the challenges to
environmental stewardship at a small liberal arts college. In: Barlett, P.F., Chase,
G.W. (Eds.), Sustainability on Campus. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Kaplowitz, M.D., Yeboah, F.K., Thorp, L., Wilson, A.M., 2009. Garnering input for
recycling communication strategies at a Big Ten University. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 53 (11), 612623.
Kelly, T.C., Mason, I.G., Leiss, M.W., Ganesh, S., 2006a. University community
responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 47 (1), 4255.
Kelly, U., McLellan, D., McNicoll, I., 2006b. The Economic Impact of UK Higher
Education Institutions. Universities UK, Strathclyde.
Lambert, R., 2003. Review of Business University Collaboration. HM Treasury,
London.
Levy, J., Dilwali, K., 2000. Economic incentives for sustainable resource consumption
at a large university past performance and future considerations.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 1 (3), 252266.
Ludwig, T.D., Gray, T.W., Rowell, A., 1998. Increasing recycling in academic
buildings: a systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 31,
683686.
Mason, I.G., Brooking, A.K., Oberender, A., Harford, J.M., Horsley, P.G., 2003.
Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 38 (4), 257269.
McCarty, J.A., Shrum, L.J., 1994. The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value
orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior.
Journal of Business Research 30 (1), 5362.
McDonald, S., Oates, C., 2003. Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling
scheme. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 39 (4), 369385.
NetsRegs, 2009. Green Procurement. NetsRegs. <http://www.netregs.gov.uk/
netregs/62499.aspx> (accessed 07.06.09).
Ongondo, F., Williams, I.D., 2011. Greening academia: use and disposal of mobile
phones among university students. Waste Management 31 (7), 16171634.
People and Planet, 2009. Green League 2009 People and Planet <http://
peopleandplanet.org/green-league-2009#gl2009_classFail>
(accessed
10.09.09).
Pike, L., Shannon, T., Lawrimore, K., McGee, A., Taylor, M., Lamoreaux, G., 2003.
Science education and sustainability initiatives a campus recycling case study
shows the importance of opportunity. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 4 (3), 218229.
Pittman, J., 2004. Living sustainably through higher education: a whole systems
design approach to organizational change. In: Corcoran, P.B., Wals, A.E.J. (Eds.),
Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Doedrecht.
Richardson, G.R.A., 2007. Institutional motivations and barriers to the construction
of green buildings on campus. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 8 (3), 339354.
Robertson, S., Walkington, H., 2009. Recycling and waste minimisation behaviours
of the transient student population in Oxford: results of an on-line survey. Local
Environment 14 (4), 285296.
Schofer, E., Meyer, J.W., 2005. The World-Wide Expansion of Higher Education in
the 20th Century. Center on Democracy Development and the Rule of Law
Stanford Institute on International Studies, Stanford.
Stephens, J.C., Hernandez, M.E., Roman, M., Graham, A.C., Scholz, R.W., 2008. Higher
education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9 (3), 317338.
Thompson, R., Green, W., 2005. When sustainability is not a priority. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 6 (1), 717.
Timlett, R.E., Williams, I.D., 2009. The impact of transient populations on recycling
behaviour in a densely populated urban environment. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 53 (9), 498506.
Timlett, R.E., Williams, I.D., 2011. The ISB (Infrastructure, Service, Behaviour)
model: a tool for waste practitioners. Waste Management 31 (6), 13811392.
United Nations Educational Scientic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 1972.
The Stockholm Declaration. UNESCO, Stockholm.
UNESCO, 2005. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 20052014.
UNESCO.
<http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141629e.pdf>
(accessed 20.06.09).
University of Southampton, 2009a. Southamptons Excellence. University of
Southampton
<http://www.soton.ac.uk/supportus/why_give/
southampton_excellence.shtml> (accessed 20.09.09).
University of Southampton, 2009b. Alumni Past Present and Future. University of
Southampton.
<http://www.soton.ac.uk/alumni/index.shtml>
(accessed
20.09.09).
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Sanchez, M., 2005. Deterring sustainability in higher
education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which inuence sustainability
in higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 6 (4), 383391.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., Taddei, J., 2006. Sustainable university:
what can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (911), 810
819.
Ward, I., Ogbonna, A., Altan, H., 2008. Sector review of UK higher education energy
consumption. Energy Policy 36 (8), 29392949.
Wells, P., Bristow, G., Nieuwenhuis, P., Christensen, T.B., 2009. The role of academia
in regional sustainability initiatives: Wales. Journal of Cleaner Production 17
(12), 11161122.
Williams, I.D., Gunton, H., 2007. Sustainable lifestyles for young people: a case
study for university students. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International

1616

N. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 16061616

Waste Management and Landll Symposium. S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari,


Sardinia, Italy, October 1/5. Paper No. 146. ISBN 978-88-6265-003-8.
Zhang, N., Williams, I.D., Smith, N.F., Kemp, S., 2008a. Waste management in UK
higher educational institutions. In: Waste 2008: Waste and Resource
Management A Shared Responsibility, Stratford-upon Avon, Warwickshire,
England. September 1617, pp. 389398.

Zhang, N., Williams, I.D., Smith, N.F. Kemp, S., 2008b. Recycling at student halls of
residence: a case study for the University of Southampton. In: Global Waste
Symposium Promoting Technology and Science Innovation, Copper Mountain,
Colorado, USA. September 710, pp. 162163.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen